Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 09:45:22 -0800 (PST) From: Tom <tom@uniserve.com> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Mike Bristow <mike@urgle.com>, "N.B. DelMore" <mylists@inr.net>, freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Multiple IP addresses Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10001270936560.2758-100000@shell.uniserve.ca> In-Reply-To: <200001271219.EAA76809@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 27 Jan 2000, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > Looks like a job for netalias: see > > http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=12071 > This hack promotes violation of ARIN and other IN registry policies > regarding use of IP space. Huh? What? I hope that isn't the reason why it isn't being accepted? I can see legitimate reasons why the patch isn't accepted but that isn't one of them. I can violate ARIN policies well enough without this patch. I've had outside consultants inform me how their clients use ancient Cisco AGS routers to dead-enter entire CIDR blocks so they pass the standard. On a side note, I'd actually like to see a mechanism to attach owners to IPs, and allows owners to bind to ports < 1024. Perhaps some sort of role-based control system needs to be looked at. Tom Uniserve To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10001270936560.2758-100000>